We are a boutique IP firm located in Osaka, Japan, specializing in trademark, design, specific unfair competition and copyright matters.

Bottom line: The Board found CIMPHONY (logo) is not confusingly similar to SYMPHONY.

The applicant filed an application for stylized CIMPHONY shown below designating computer software for surveying and civil engineering.

<Applied-for mark>

The examiner refused to register the mark, citing SYMPHONY in standard character designating computer software and programs for use in protecting, monitoring, controlling, regulating of power generation plants, petrochemical plants, water distribution networks, desalination plants and pumping stations.  The case was brought to the Appeal Board.

The Board noted that the applied-for mark is composed of CIM in bright yellow and PHONY in black, and that the mark has a distinctive impression owing to its colors and stylization.  The applied-for mark as a whole composes one word and pronounced [si-n-fo-ni:] but has no particular meaning.

Turning to the cited mark, the Board found that it is a known dictionary word pronounced and means as such.

The Board compared the two marks and found that they are pronounced identically, but visually distinguishable and semantically not confusable.

Accordingly, the Board concluded that the marks are not similar and reversed the refusal.